If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)

What is the tangible difference between Fascism and Marxist-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism etc?

  • 20-04-2022 9:23pm
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭ Repo101

    Lots of people among the far-left on social media are describing themselves as Anti-fascists, yet a large proportion of that group has pictures of Lenin, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. as their profile picture. From my understanding, in simple terms, the theoretical difference is that fascism is ultranationalist whereas far-left ideology is not. The problem with this argument is that is simply not true. The Bolsheviks believed in nationalism and it is often argued that the October revolution would not be successful without the clear stating of that ideology. As a reminder one of the main principles of the revolution was the right of nations to self-determination, which of course was a lie.

    Why do we pretend that there is a difference between the far-left and far-right? Why are people on the far-left so ignorant of history and believe in fanciful ideas that only result in the concentration of power and death? Do they believe that Chinese nationalism doesn't exist or Russian nationalism doesn't exist?

    The mention of the word fascism is rightly met with disdain in Western culture, but why is it not the same for the Marxists/Leninists/Stalinists/Communists etc?

    Do people not see the hypocrisy of condemning one ideology while supporting a completely different but equally brutal one?

    Far-left ideology results in the concentration of power as does far-right ideology, yet we only hear about the dangers of the far-right? Why is that?

    Shouldn't the government/EU be doing more to stop people believing in extremist nonsense that has failed in every existence it was incarnated?

    A lot of these far-left types would appear to also be supporting Russia in Ukraine.


  • Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭ Repo101

    I'm well aware of the meaning of the word tangible. In order to make a comparison, you need some form of measurement, i.e. the tangible results. Perhaps a bit further reading would help.

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,778 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia

    Fascism is a totalitarian alignment of corporations and the state : extreme capitalism meets extreme nationalism led by a political dictatorship aligned to corporate interests. Fascists focus on the rights of the privileged individual while also promoting jingoistic pride in the collective

    Marxism is the vanguard state taking over all private property to share the productive output amongst the people according to their need. In theory it is egalitarian but the vanguard state (the party) immediately takes control and divides up the resources amongst themselves and uses the resources of the people to secure their own power

    Stalinism is when the idea of a vanguard Marxist party 'melting away' is abandoned and there is a permanent revolution that demands totalitarian powers to protect the revolution from external division

    Leninism is Stalinism before totalitarianism has been established fully.

    Maoism is similar to Marxism. But in China

  • Tangible results being based in the real world, using physical objections.. as opposed to ideas or thoughts.

    Grand. You don't get it.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,720 ✭✭✭✭ Donald Trump


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭ John Doe1

    It is just different means for Arts students to appear cool before they start their career as a barista for a Multinational coffee chain.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,423 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below

    In communism there is no state to take control of anything.

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,778 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia

  • Registered Users Posts: 367 ✭✭ GandhiwasfromBallyfermot

    Very helpful. Where does Socialism fit into the above then? Is it similar to Marxism just without the idea of the Vanguard state melting away to transition into full communism? Also I would hope Socialism would include some form of multi party democracy and not just a single party state.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,515 ✭✭✭✭ Danzy

    Fascism is a modified communism. It's the evolution of communism, it was Communism without the more obvious flaws.

    It wasn't any different when it came to death and killing, a smaller scale but if it lasted longer it would have maybe even surpassed it's older brother.

    The natural evolution of both is to surpression, control and mass murder as the deep flaws in both can't be resolved to Life.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,423 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below

    Don't get me wrong, authoritarian socialism ends as brutal as fascism (they're not the same but results are.)

    But communism is not authoritarian socialism, it's libertarian socialism, and not remotely comparable to fascism.

  • Registered Users Posts: 38,904 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail

    can you point to some communist regimes that were not authoritarian?

  • Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭ Brucie Bonus

    Facism hates people based on ethnicity, religion, sexuality. Thats its key tenet.

    Communism is based on social economics.

    A dictator is a dictator, regardless of what beliefs they claim that conveniently allow them hold on to absolute power.

    The most successful one, that is so successful at what it does it didn't make the list, is 'free market capitalism'. Another system rife with abuse that takes advantage and bleeds the public. It hides within democracy.

    I think crooked and greedy people out for themselves are the link to all of the above.

  • Why do we pretend that there is a difference between the far-left and far-right? Why are people on the far-left so ignorant of history and believe in fanciful ideas that only result in the concentration of power and death?

    There is no real "far-left" movement, at least not in Western society.

    There aren't gangs of people, roaming the countryside, looking to string up capitalists and hang them from the rafters. Nobody wants to live under totalitarian rule. Nobody wants to round up the nay-sayers and put them in concentration camps. This is what the other side wants you to believe. The term was popularised by racists and xenophobes who tried to excuse their own sh1tty behaviour towards anyone not deemed worthy enough......"It's okay for met to be a racist, if you're a marxist" quickly turns into "yeah, we have nazis on our side, but you have communists on yours so we're both the same".

    Being on the political right was becoming a bit of a stigma because most right-wing Western politicians tarnished the reputation by being bigots, racists and xenophobes. Instead of cleaning up their own side of the stable, they're flinging crap at the other side and saying the whole place stinks.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,423 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below

  • Registered Users Posts: 38,904 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail

    I assumed from your post that you knew what communism was.

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,423 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,778 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia

    Socialism is a broad spectrum but at its most basic, its a system that balances individual freedom with a social safety net funded through taxation. The more this tends towards supporting the needs of society vs the needs of the wealthy, the more socialist they are.

    The social democratic countries in Europe all fund a robust welfare state, without any prohibitions on the ownership of private property. In social democracies the public choose to elect parties on the basis that they will be taxed quite high taxes but those taxes are to be used to provide high quality social services and income supports. Social democracies

    Communism is a form of socialism though a totalitarian one, the other extreme side of socialism is Anarchism which rejects the state or any proto state in favour of self organising syndicates (there are other flavours of anarchism)

    In contrast to social democracy, the further the country goes away from providing a safety net and well resourced social services, the more 'conservative', 'libertarian' or 'neoliberal' the country becomes. Here the focus is on individuals working hard to provide for themselves. taxation is used to facilitate enterprise and to maintain order and security with comparatively low regulations on industry or protections for labour rights

    Post edited by Akrasia on

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,778 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia

    Fascism is similar in many ways, but the fascists don't pretend to give the people ownership of the means of production.

    The totalitarian nature of both Fascism and Stalinism are what caused the worst consequences. They're two flavours of totalitarian rule

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 20,778 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia

    There probably are loads of small communes around the place that get on well and are not totalitarian. Israeli kibbutz are sometimes corrupted, but not always and haven't descended Into totalitarianism

    although that could be a matter of scale and the support they often get from the state of Israel

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,778 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia

    Libertarian Socialism is not the same as Marxism. This was what the early anarchists subscribed to and their main difference was their opposition to the formation of the vanguard party because they didn't believe that party would 'melt away'

  • Registered Users Posts: 12,423 ✭✭✭✭ Hello 2D Person Below


    We've gone from fascism and (your inaccurate definition of) communism to fascism and Stalinism.

    We have progress.

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,099 ✭✭✭✭ TheValeyard

    Would Stalinism not have been Socialism in one country (lead by examples, others will follow) as a different approach to Trotskyism and permanent revolution? Agreed that both demanded totalitarianism to 'protect' the revolution.

    Fcuk Putin. Glory to Ukraine!

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,778 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia

    I was defining Marxism and stalinism as per the OP. In the communist manifesto Marx said there would be a need for a vanguard party to take control and rule to defend the revolution until the Proletariat gained 'class consciousness' but this would melt away as it is no longer needed post revolution

  • Registered Users Posts: 20,778 ✭✭✭✭ Akrasia

    Stalinism started out as socialism but the circumstances of how Stalin came to power and all the purges he used to suppress political dissent meant that socialism was abandoned in favour of the iron grip

    It's likely Stalin never really believed in any of the Marxist principles that drove Lenin and Trotsky but that's not relevant because the whole concept of a vanguard party is almost inevitably going to lead to dictatorship due to path dependency

    Very very few military coups voluntarily hand back power afterwards, and even fewer when the requirement for 'class consciousness' means they have to hold power by force until the people transform their way of thinking to agree with the revolution

  • Registered Users Posts: 38,904 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail

    so now we have established that you do not what it means can you point to a communist regime that was not authoritarian?

  • Registered Users Posts: 367 ✭✭ GandhiwasfromBallyfermot

    Have to say social democracy sounds like the way to go. It looks like a lot of those nordic countries got it right with their high standard of living and bloody good public transport.